Organization Leader and decision making - Discussion

Article

Conceptualising followership – a review of the literature

Brian Crossman and Joanna Crossman School of Management, University of South Australia, Australia.

Abstract

Despite growing attention in professional and academic literature, a commonly accepted defini-

tion of followership does not seem to have emerged. The authors nevertheless explore some of

the implications of followership definitions to date and build on these to offer one of their own. A

review of the literature ensues, highlighting descriptive and prescriptive behavioural typologies,

and situational theories. The paper argues that understanding the concept of followership better

is likely to improve training and organizational performance and concludes with suggestions for

future research and some implications for leadership/followership development.

Keywords

followership, leadership, management, organizational behaviour, leadership/followership

development

Introduction

Leadership is a much debated topic but, according to Burns (1978), is a little understood phenomenon despite a burgeoning choice of academic and public literature available. Few individuals are actually absolute leaders (Hackman and Wageman, 2007) with most spend- ing the majority of their working lives in following rather than leading roles (Ciulla, 2003; Gronn, 1998; Rost, 1993). It is perhaps unsurprising therefore that a dedicated text, The Power of Followership (Kelley, 1992) attracted so much attention and became a seminal text for the corporate world and that a number of recent books and articles on leadership are now devoting attention to the topic (Alio, 2009; Dubrin et al., 2006; Goffee and Jones, 2006;

Corresponding author:

Dr Joanna Crossman, Room EM4–32, City West Campus, Elton Mayo Building, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia

5000, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001

Email: [email protected]

Leadership

7(4) 481–497

! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1742715011416891

lea.sagepub.com

Johnson, 2007; Lussier and Achua, 2004; Raelin, 2003; Rosenbach and Taylor, 2006; Townsend and Gebhart, 1997; Yukl, 2006). If followership has attracted less attention than leadership in the literature, it may be because, according to Agho (2009), both managers and management academics appear to have assumed that individuals instinc- tively know how to follow and have not fully appreciated the potential for individuals to learn how to follow effectively. In addition, with the current climate of shared, distributed or dispersed leadership where ‘[i]ndividuals can be followers in one team at the same time as they are leaders in another’ (Horsfall, 2001) has almost certainly meant that the concept of followership has become increasingly relevant to both practitioners and academics. The view that followership is a complement to leadership and ‘encompasses important char- acter traits for any person who aspires to lead others’ (Agho, 2009: 160) also highlights the value of learning more about how to develop followership and has the added benefit of enhancing leadership competence and indeed organizational effectiveness from the perspective of a number of authors writing on the subject (Bjugstad et al., 2006; Dixon and Westbrook, 2003; Rosenbach and Taylor, 2006; Russell, 2003; Wortman, 1982). This paper therefore aims to highlight and clarify some key concepts through a review of the literature on followership with the needs of professional developers and organizations in mind.

Defining followers and followership

Since the early 1980s the term ‘follower’ has been increasingly used as a synonym for the term ‘subordinate’ (Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). Nevertheless, ‘subordinate’ is still in common usage; for example, the index of a recent book on leadership contains the index entry: ‘Followers – See subordinates’ (Northouse, 2007: 381). In the search for acceptable alternatives to counteract the negative connotations of the discourse often used to describe followership (Agho, 2009: 159) (including terms such as ‘subordinates’), some authors have opted for terms such as ‘participants’, ‘collaborators’, and ‘partners’ (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Another term, ‘constituent’, has been perceived as inherently neutral (Dubrin et al., 2006) and favoured by authors who analyse leadership within a more political or micro political framework (Birnbaum, 1988; Gardner, 1990; Glasman and Heck, 1996). Yukl (2006: 9) uses ‘subordinate’ or ‘direct report’ to denote the existence of a formal authority arrangement, reserving the term ‘follower’ for those being influenced by a leader in the absence of formal authority relationship amongst, for example, co-workers or team members. Kellerman (2008: xix) too describes ‘followers’ in relation to hierarchy, as ‘subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than do their superiors and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line’.

If the concept of leadership has been obfuscated with its numerous definitions, follower- ship in stark contrast appears to have laid claim to far fewer conceptual analyses, developed definitions and in-depth reviews of followership literature. Such a state of affairs may not be unique to the study of followership. Rost’s (1993) investigation on leadership showed that approximately two thirds of writers did not define leadership in their studies. In this review of 30 authors explicitly writing about followership either as a central theme or section to their book, chapter or paper only five actually gave a concrete definition.

Writers use the term ‘followership’ in a number of ways: as the opposite of leadership in a leadership/followership continuum, a direct or indirect influential activity, or as a role or a group noun for those influenced by a leader (Atchison, 2004; Briggs, 2004; Gronn, 1996;

482 Leadership 7(4)

Hodgkinson,1983; Russell, 2003; Seteroff, 2003). In other words, definitions of followership are also often constructed in terms of how the concept relates to leadership.

A recent comprehensive review of followership literature (Baker, 2007: 56) made use of Heller and van Til’s (1982) summation that: ‘leadership and followership are best seen as roles in relation’, a view which is also endorsed by Kelley (1998). Hollander and Webb (1955), too, provided an early definition of followership but drew attention to the difficulty of defining the term given that it might vary depending upon whether followership was approached from the perspective of a leader or a follower. Favouring the former and writing in the context of naval aviation cadets, they defined followership as ‘the extent to which an individual is desired by potential leaders of a group functioning within a circumscribed institutional context’ (Hollander and Webb, 1955: 155). Another definition from a military context also chose to conceive the concept of followership in relation to the leader’s perspective:

Followership can be defined as a process in which subordinates recognize their responsibility to comply with the orders of leaders and take appropriate action consistent with the situation to

carry out those orders to the best of their ability. In the absence of orders they estimate the proper action to contribute to mission performance and take that action.

(Townsend and Gebhart, 1997: 52).

Likewise, Bjugstad et al. (2006: 304) also take a leader-centred view in stating: ‘Followership may be defined as the ability to effectively follow the directives and support the efforts of a leader to maximize a structured organization.’ In contrast, an early definition written from a more balanced or neutral perspective of followership is found in the work of Wortman (1982: 373):

followership is the process of attaining one’s individual goals by being influenced by a leader into participating in individual or group efforts toward organizational goals in a given situation. Followership thereby becomes seen as a function of the follower, the leader, and situational

variables.

In his pioneering work on followership, Kelley (1988: 146–47) chose to define leadership and followership in distinctive ways:

The operative definitions are roughly these: people who are effective in the leader role have the vision to set corporate goals and strategies, the interpersonal skills to achieve consensus, the ver-

bal capacity to communicate enthusiasm to large and diverse groups of individuals, the organi- zational talent to coordinate disparate efforts and, above all, the desire to lead.

People who are effective in the follower role have the vision to see both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to flourish without heroic

status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost to others, and, above all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose.

Thus Kelley identified the self and motivation as the primary differences, with leaders need- ing perhaps a stronger sense of articulating a vision and ‘heroic status’ with more humble followers pursuing their goals without harm to others.

Howell and Costley (2006: 298) in their definition highlight an interactive rather than hierarchical approach to the relationship of leadership and followership roles, taking the view that they are equally important in achieving group and organizational performance.

Crossman and Crossman 483

These authors associated the followership role with ‘enthusiasm, cooperation, effort, active participation, task competence and critical thinking’ though suggest that followers take on a supportive role in the group in meeting organizational objectives without the need to claim overall responsibility.

Many of the definitions cited above assume that roles are inherently related to hierarchical status. This perspective has been challenged by the view that leadership/followership repre- sents an influential process (see Gardner et al., 2005), irrespective of rank (Rost, 1995, 2008) and a state (Stech, 2008). The notion of followership/leadership as a process is intrinsic to Agho’s (2009) argument that only after becoming an effective follower could one become an effective leader – suggesting that followership is an experiential requirement of leadership. Rost’s (1995: 112) departure from defining followership in strictly hierarchical terms is evi- dent in the example that follows:

. . . followers do leadership not followership. And while followers sometimes change places and

become leaders, they do have to be leaders to exert influence, to use power resources to persuade others of their position. In sum, followers are active agents in the leadership relationship, not passive recipients of the leader’s influence.

Drawing on the contributions of these authors, this paper defines followership as comple- menting leadership and concurs with Carsten et al.’s (2010: 559) concept of followership being ‘upward leadership’:

Followership is a relational role in which followers have the ability to influence leaders and

contribute to the improvement and attainment of group and organizational objectives. It is primarily a hierarchically upwards influence.

In sum, followership and leadership are often perceived as being ‘highly similar’ (Bass and Stogdill, 1990: 346) with some believing the concepts to be ‘exchangeable’ for the most part (Foster, 1989: 42). Points of greatest differentiation appear to be concerned with the pro- portion of time spent in leading, coupled with the power differentials involved. Nevertheless, it seems clear that continued discussion and debate are required in order to diffuse some of the confusion surrounding definitions of leadership and followership.

Review of the literature

An overview of overlapping categories of leadership and followership literature

Leadership and followership literature can be divided into four broad overlapping categories within a fluid continuum: (i) individualized or leader-centric theories; (ii) leader-centred theories which rely on follower perspectives; (iii) multiple leadership which encompasses what is often referred to as shared, distributed or collective leadership, and (iv) the follow- ership literature per se.

The first group, referred to as individualized leadership, is essentially comprised of leader-centred theories concentrating on ‘exceptional’ (Burns, 1978), ‘top level’ (Sashkin, 2004) or ‘outstanding’ (Mumford et al., 2008) leaders in which leadership is primarily top down, employing vision, mission statements or rules to influence followers. Notwith- standing this leader-centred ‘great man’ approach, a number of transformational leader- ship studies have ‘increasingly focused on the role of the follower [and] how the characteristics of the follower impact on how transformational a leader behaves’ (Avolio and Reichard, 2008: 327).

484 Leadership 7(4)

One notable study in the 1980s challenged the leadership literature which had previously largely concentrated on idealized heroic and often charismatic leaders, single-handedly lead- ing their followers to success (Meindl et al., 1985). This influential paper, The Romance of Leadership, was written to counteract the zeal with which Meindl, Ehrlich and Durkerich believed most leadership theorists had exaggerated leaders’ actions and influences. By ana- lysing discourse surrounding leadership in the popular press, dissertations, business period- icals and conducting further empirical experiments, the study argued that ‘leadership has assumed a romanticized, larger than life role’ (Meindl et al., 1985: 79). The work of Meindl and co-workers appeared to be a follower-centric model by default as it attempted to coun- teract some of the myths of hero leaders rather than actually concentrating on followers. Like others, however, Meindl (1995) subsequently pursued an explicitly follower-centered approach in which followers were foregrounded in the investigations (e.g. Den Hartog and Koopman, 2005; Hollander, 1992; Hollander and Offerman, 1990; Keller, 1999; Meindl, 1995; Nye, 2005; Offerman et al., 1994; Uhl-Bien, 2005).

Follower-centred perspectives of leadership have adopted a bottom-up approach exam- ining followers’ perspectives on what constitutes effective or ineffective leaders. For example, leader-member-exchange (LMX) theories have aimed to assess in empirical ways the roles of leaders and followers more dynamically within a leadership process (Shamir, 2007). Although followers are noted, the focus of these studies appears to be aimed at understand- ing leadership.

The third group, relating to multiple leadership acknowledges that leadership can occur not only amongst formally appointed individuals but also amongst informal leaders who emerge from group interactions. Multiple leadership encompasses what has been variously termed shared, dispersed, collective, distributed leadership, team leadership and self-managed teams. The diverse nomenclature surrounding multiple leadership is a problematic issue compounded by the fact that different authors use these terms and meanings interchangeably within the same text (Offerman and Scuderi, 2007). Followers are nevertheless fully recog- nized in a literary and organizational shift away from hierarchical systems to more fluid roles in team-based environments. Indeed, a number of authors have questioned the assumed division of labour between leaders and followers and suggest a combination of informal and formal fluid interdependence between the two (Gronn, 2003), so that ‘strictly speaking, the shared leadership approach is neither leader-centered nor follower-centered because it rejects that there is a distinction between leaders and followers at all (Shamir, 2007: xvii).

Despite variations in theoretical frameworks however, a general consensus exists in rela- tion to two ideas. Firstly that ‘leadership is not just a top down process between the formal leader and team members’ and secondly that ‘there can be multiple leaders within a group’ (Mehra et al., 2006).

The journal paper Substitutes for leadership (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) illustrates this per- spective and arose from investigations grounded in contingency leadership used to explain situations where actions by leaders had no discernible positive effect either in terms of improving motivation, or indeed leading to a diminished follower morale. In such instances of ineffective leadership within formal hierarchies, the research findings indicated the devel- opment of informal horizontal peer processes to form ‘[c]ohesive, interdependent work groups . . . in mature group structures’ (Kerr and Jermier, 1978: 379). These processes pro- vided an intrinsic, unspoken leadership in providing norms and expectations for the group in ways that filled a perceived leadership vacuum. Furthermore, in well-motivated teams, the task itself could provide informal but positive feedback in terms of job satisfaction,

Crossman and Crossman 485

obviating the need for a formally appointed leader. This theory has much in common with the notion of self-managed teams which has been taken to mean an equal sharing of lead- ership. Offerman and Scuderi (2007: 77 italics added) ‘propose using the term collective leadership in situations where there is an expectation and realization of full participation among the members of the group’ but acknowledge that such a state of affairs would likely prove to be a ‘rare accomplishment’ – the reality being that some team members possess more leadership influence than others.

Followership

Followership, as an active role followers play in shaping the interdependency of leader/ follower interactions, is a perspective first promulgated in the 1930s (Baker, 2007). Interest in subordinate or follower behaviour gained increased attention in the post-war years (Hollander and Webb, 1955; Zaleznik, 1965) and behavioural theories of the era encouraged employee participation (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Vroom and Yetton, 1973). If leader-centric theories lay rooted in exceptional top-level leaders, followership theories arguably originated at mid-manager levels. The popular management press in the 1990s saw two seminal works on corporate mid-manager training (e.g. those managers who follow more senior levels but are also required to lead others) in the work of Chaleff (1995) and Kelley (1992). Although Cohen and Bradford (1989) also concentrated on upward and peer interactions in their book Influence without authority, it was Kelly (1992) and Chaleff (1995) who made a major contribution using followership in the title of their books, setting the scene for followership being accepted as a field in its own right.

Despite the fact that Kelley and Chaleff are widely referred to in papers concerned with followership, these texts and a number of others on the topic are criticized because the assumptions are not based on empirical research (Baker, 2007). However, some researchers appear to be answering the call for empirical verification of Kelley’s work. Blanchard et al. (2009:114), for example, published their quantitative study of followership with university employees, claiming that until that point, ‘no research [had] yet validated Kelley’s follow- ership measures’. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) have also attempted to verify Kelley’s assumptions in his 1992 text with mixed findings.

Recently, two reviews of the followership literature have emerged. Firstly, as part of their investigation, Bjugstad et al. (2006: 306) categorized the literature into three broad theoret- ical areas: literature relating to follower motivations, follower values and trust, and the char- acteristics of effective and ineffective followers. Secondly, Baker’s (2007) review proved to be a key benchmark in that it was the first journal article totally dedicated to a review of followership literature. Baker made four key observations: 1) followership and leadership pertain to roles, 2) followers are active rather than passive, 3) followers and leaders share a common purpose, and 4) the relational dynamics between followers and leaders is significant (Baker, 2007: 56).

This paper offers an alternative to Baker’s (2007) argument that followership literature can be divided into three groups. The first group is descriptive, giving actual behaviours exhibited by followers which can be active or passive, disregarding, supporting, or in oppo- sition to their leaders. The second group is prescriptive, concentrating on idealized behav- iours that relate to behaviour followers should exhibit rather than those they necessarily do. The third relates to a relatively small body of literature that examines situational factors of followership in terms of how compatible particular leadership and followership styles are

486 Leadership 7(4)

when operating in relation to one another in certain contexts. Though these areas of interest have been distinguished, they are also interrelated being underpinned by constructs of self and motivation.

Descriptive behavioural typologies

One of the earliest typologies into subordinate behaviour was undertaken by Zaleznik (1965) who explored leader/follower and follower/follower interactions in terms of power and con- flict within dominating/submissive relationships. He suggested that whilst leaders often ostensibly hold power, with some followers assuming submissiveness (perhaps even with a desire to be controlled), there are nevertheless some followers who are anti-authoritarian and may aspire to dominate the relationship. Under such circumstances, followers can either actively support or indeed undermine the leader. Kelley (1992), in his text entitled The power of followership, becoming arguably one of the most influential and widely quoted authors of contemporary followership literature, maintained that followers tend to be either active or passive using dependency and critical thinking as causal variables underpinning their respec- tive behaviours. In this model, dependent, uncritical passive followers are cast as being reluctant to voice personal reservations, remaining spectator-like and contributing little. In contrast, conformists are active non-threatening, team players seeking to avoid conflict and are later referred to by Kelley as yes people (Kelley, 1998, 2008).

Exemplary followers or Star followers (Kelley, 2008), are the ideal. These individuals demonstrate initiative and facilitate the needs and interests of peers, leaders and the orga- nization and exhibit the courage required to put forward perspectives that are sometimes antithetical to their leaders. However, Kelley (1992) warns that critical thinking in its extreme form can give rise to debilitating cynicism characteristic of alienated followers. Alienated followers are described by Kelley as potential ‘troublemakers’ who do not interact positively with their leaders. Finally, Kelley identified pragmatist followers who balance task and performance within organization rules, cultures and the micro political environment. Pragmatists may question their leaders somewhat but exhibit little initiative (Kelley, 1992).

Key typologies of work focusing on followership behaviour are illustrated in the following table. Authors cited have either used behaviours or metaphors to communicate how they have identified each behaviour.

Potter and Rosenbach’s (2006) work appears to accept Kelley’s analysis of the literature in that followership is broadly understood to be influenced by the relationship between the follower and leader and/or upon the task in hand. These writers refer to relationship initia- tive as an active participation to improve relationships by identifying with the leader, build- ing trust, courageous communication (being able to deliver bad news, for example) and negotiating differences. ‘Performance initiative’ is another concept in the same text, con- cerned with performing work with others and embracing change. The ideal follower is conceived as a partner who demonstrates a commitment to both task performance and an effective relationship with the leader. According to Potter and Rosebach (2006), politicians tend to concentrate on relationships rather than task output whereas contributors, in contrast, work and perform well but are not so interested in relationships. Stegers et al. (1982) grounded their typology in more self-interested motives such as balancing the desire for recognition and job enhancement with a felt need to protect themselves from failure. As previously indicated, Kelley (1992, 2008) suggested that followership styles depend upon how independent individuals are or their capacity for critical thinking and

Crossman and Crossman 487

Kellerman (2007, 2008) concentrates on relational motivations such as the level of engage- ment, dominance and deference.

Whilst the typologies summarized in Table 1 do vary, they also exhibit certain common- alties. Less desirable behaviours with low levels of commitment and effectiveness might be grouped at one end of the spectrum. The terms withdrawn (Zaleznik, 1965), alienated, passive (Kelly, 1992), apathetic, deviants, (Steger et al.,1982), subordinates (Potter and Rosenbach, 2006) and isolates (Kellerman, 2008) are illustrative. At the other end of the spectrum, ideal behaviours with a high level of commitment are identifiable through such descriptors as exemplary (Kelly, 1992) achiever, superfollower (Steger et al., 1982) and partner (Potter and Rosenbach, 2006; Chaleff, 2008). Lying in between these extremes are neutral descriptors described by various authors as conformists, pragmatists, bureaucrats, donkeys, game players, contributors and participants.

While these typologies stem from the corporate world, one of the few studies of follow- ership in education (Thody, 2003: 147–8) provides another comprehensive typology of actual positive and negative follower behaviours and the roles they adopt.

Prescriptive behavioural typologies

The second and smaller area of interest identified in followership studies is more prescriptive, characterized by behaviours that followers should exhibit rather than those they necessarily do. Chaleff (1995: 6–8), for example, did not categorize followers as passive/active or effec- tive/ineffective in his initial work but proposed five components of courageous followership that focus upon ideal behaviours. These are:

(i) The courage to assume responsibility for themselves and the organization without any expectation that the leader or organization will provide security, opportunities for growth orrequire permission to initiate improvement.

(ii) The courage to serve a leader by assuming new or additional responsibilities to unbur- den their leader and serve the organization.

(iii) The courage to challenge by giving voice to the discomfort they feel when the behaviours or policies of the leader or group conflict with a personal sense of what is right.

Table 1. A typology of descriptive followership behaviours

Author/s Zaleznik, 1965 Kelly, 1992 Steger et al., 1982

Potter and

Rosenbach, 2006 Kellerman, 2008

Follower types Withdrawn Alienated Apathetic Subordinate Isolates

Masochistic Passive Bureaucrat Politician Bystanders

Compulsive Conformists Game player Contributor Participants

Impulsive Pragmatists Donkey Partner Activists

Exemplary Kamikaze Diehards

Deviant

Artist

Achiever

Superfollower

488 Leadership 7(4)

(iv) The courage to participate fully in transformation and change processes. (v) The courage to leave. Courageous followers are prepared to actively withdraw support

from, even to disavow or oppose destructive leaders, despite high personal risk.

Chaleff’s subsequent work on the model was refined into two key underpinning behaviours for effective followership: ‘the courage to support’ and the ‘courage to challenge the leader’s behavior or policies’ (Chaleff, 2008). Chaleff identified four kinds of follower that illustrate how these behaviours may be manifested:

(1) Resource – low support, low challenge. Will do enough to retain position but no more. (2) Individualist – low support, high challenge. Will speak up when others are silent, but

voice is marginalized and perceived as chronically contrarian. (3) Implementer – high support, low challenge. Leader values this style but is at risk because

follower will not caution against costly mistakes. (4) Partner – high support, high challenge. Assumes full responsibility for own and leader’s

behaviour and acts accordingly (adapted from Chaleff, 2008: 75).

Using Chaleff’s (1995) model, Dixon and Westbrook (2003) conducted an empirical, quantitative study to investigate the relationship between followership and level/status of leader. They concluded that courageous followership existed at all levels of the orga- nization, with senior levels possessing the highest conceptual understanding and acknowl- edgement of follower behaviours with this capacity diminishing down though the organizational hierarchy. Another of the few empirical studies centred on ‘dynamic fol- lowership’ identified cooperation, flexibility, integrity, initiative and problem solving as key skills in a management-instituted initiative to improve customer service (Alcorn, 1992). A recent study has taken Kelly’s (1992) exemplary followers as a starting point and developed a followership typology for creative and innovative behaviours in organizations: the creative sceptic, creative catalyst, creative static, and creative supporter (Jaussi et al., 2008).

Table 2. Thody’s typology of positive and negative follower behaviours

Negative followers Positive followers

Behaviours Roles played Behaviours Roles played

Alienated Communication distorter Independent Coordinator

Isolated Saboteur Active-passive Mentee/apprentice

Passive Toxic creator Entrepreneurial Disciple

Dependents Loyalist Gatekeeper-filter

Observers Exemplary/exceptional Partner/comrade

Reluctant-resistant Interdependent Toxic handler

Sheep Transactional Second in command

Machiavellian Rescuer

Plateaued Muse

Survivor

Yes-people, sycophants

Crossman and Crossman 489

Attention to ideal follower behaviours has also been influenced by the current interest in corporate social responsibility and business ethics, just as it has in leadership literature (Johnson, 2007). Of interest is that Agho’s (2009: 163) recent study of over 300 senior executives found that although characteristics of leaders and followers are not generally identical, honesty appears to be a common requirement for both. It is ‘Crimes of obedience’ (Hinrichs, 2007), however, where subordinates comply or collude with the unethical direc- tives and practices of their leaders that contributed to calls for ethical behaviour on the part of followers.

In their book on authentic leadership Goffee and Jones (2006) devote a chapter to Authentic Followership, characterized as a need to belong, be recognized, be challenged and to experience a sense of excitement. A study by Avolio and Reichard (2008: 327) also alludes to mutual authenticity based on ‘transparency, trust, and openness on the part of authentic leaders who are expected to in this regard, set an example and hope that followers will reciprocate.

The need for followers to lay claim to a strong sense of self and identity is also an emerging line of enquiry identified in the literature (Gardner et al., 2005). Another significant study by Collinson (2006) in the oil and gas sector analysed followership using a poststruc- turalist framework of power, self-identity and subjectivity His framework did not seek to categorize ideal/non-ideal or effective/ineffective behaviours but utilized three types of self to explain followership:

(1) The conformist self, stemming from a Foucauldian notion that ‘workplace surveillance systems produce disciplined selves’.

(2) The resistant self, drawing on Foucault’s theory that ‘power invariably produces resis- tance’ meaning that some anti leader sentiments and behaviours inevitable.

(3) The dramaturgical self, where individuals manipulate their workplace constraints and power markers, such as performance reviews, targets and audits, to their own ends as a coping strategy (adapted from Collinson, 2006: 183–4).

Lord (2008) suggests that self-identity (in other words having a strong sense of self) is associated with an individual’s ability to take leadership. Likewise, it has been argued that in contemporary organizations, followers are increasingly demonstrating and being expected to demonstrate, independent or self-leadership roles without regular direction from their leaders (Lord, 2008) especially amongst ‘professionals and highly trained service workers’ (Howell and Mendez, 2008: 31–4). Self-leadership exhibited by followers may also be char- acterized by incidences of whistle blowing in response to cases of unethical leadership behav- iour (Chaleff, 1995; Goffee and Jones, 2006; Kelly, 1992; Johnson, 2007; Potter and Rosenbach, 2006). Given the potential for attracting marginalization, ostracism (Johnson, 2007) by peers and job loss (Alford, 2008: 238) these kinds of response represent significant career risks.

Situational theories

The third area of interest identifiable in followership literature draws attention to the context in which leadership and followership take place. One early study on senior executives (Wortman, 1982) maintained that leadership occurs at higher strategic management levels, whereas followership tends to manifest itself at operational levels. Wortman (1982: 377)

490 Leadership 7(4)

argued that followership behaviour is influenced by whether a follower is employed by a conservative organization or one that is innovative. According to Wortman, conservative organizations reward stability and efficiency and punish deviations from group norms, whereas innovative organizations encourage followers to be creative and show initiative. Similarly, Potter and Rosenbach (2006) discuss variations in followership behaviours which depend on whether organizations are experiencing a steady state or slow growth or are faster paced where achievers and risk takers are recognized and rewarded.

An early study (Gibbons, 1992) argued for consideration of followership and leadership roles as a situational factor depending upon the relationships involved. Models depicting quadrants of followership styles have been used to illustrate the way that leader and follower relationships as situations might work. For example, the model of Bjugstad et al. (2006) is based on Kelly’s (1992) quadrant some years before: the alienated exemplary, the passive and the conformist follower styles and Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) quadrant of situational leadership styles based on task and relationship behaviour between leaders and followers the telling, selling, delegating and participating styles. Bjugstad et al. (2006) superimposed the two quadrants to indicate how certain kinds of leaders and followers might work together. For example, a leader can choose a telling, directive style for conformist followers who have a low desire, commitment or training to complete a task. The delegating style of Hersey and Blanchard (1982) could be used for Kelley’s (1992) exemplary followers, the participative style for alienated followers to enhance their motivation and a selling style would work to encour- age passive followers intensify their engagement. This proposed model by Bjugstad et al. (2006) has little confirmatory evidence, but nevertheless draws attention to matching and satisfying leader/follower expectations and has the potential for improving performance and productivity. A more recent empirical investigation (Mushonga and Torrance, 2008) employed a five-factor model of personality: extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience and linked these factors to Kelly’s (1988) follower- ship theory with regard to engagement and independent critical thinking. However, the study did not identify a strong correlation between personality and Kelly’s (1998) follower attributes. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) also applied Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theories (1972, 1982) to a study involving 357 banking employees in Norway and appeared to confirm that employee outcomes are linked to prescribed leader behaviours and follower developmental levels. Furthermore recent research appears to be cementing the importance of followership and providing cogent arguments for practice and directions for future research, topics to which the review now turns.

Recent empirical research and implications for practice and future research

Empirical research into followership is still in its infancy but recent studies arguably provide significant contributions to present theory and provide direction in terms of implications for practice. To illustrate, a quantitative study of followership by Agho (2009) investigated the perspectives of senior directors in terms of what constituted desirable attributes for both followers and leaders. The study determined that honesty and competence were commonly thought to be important attributes for effective leaders and followers; however, dependabil- ity, loyalty and cooperation ‘ranked higher as desirable characteristics for followers’ (Agho, 2009: 165). Carsten et al.’s (2010) recent qualitative study of followers at various hierar- chical levels was conducted to ascertain how followers themselves constructed followership.

Crossman and Crossman 491

The study found that followers grouped themselves into one of three categories: (i) passive followers who are loyal, supportive and obey their leaders’ directives; (ii) active followers who provide ‘opinions when given the opportunity, but remaining obedient and loyal regardless of whether they were in agreement with the leader’; and (iii) ‘proactive fol- lowers . . . willing to constructively challenge their managers if needed’ (Carsten et al., 2010: 556).

The work of Agho (2009) and Carsten et al. (2010) usefully inform understandings of followership and suggest the need to refine earlier descriptive and prescriptive models. Their contributions also provide some evolved answers to Hackman and Wageman’s (2007: 45) question: ‘[How] can leadership models be reframed so they treat all system members as both leaders and followers?’ Agho’s (2009) and Carsten’s (2010) research is also important in terms of the practical applications of their findings that respond to Heifetz et al.’s (2009: 64) call for ‘adaptive leadership’ to deal with the uncertainty exacerbated by the global financial crises by ‘giving people of all levels of the organization the opportunity to lead [and] adapt to changing times’.

Arguing from an HR perspective, Hurwitz and Hurwitz (2009a: 84, 85) also specifically note the practical implications of followership research. In their view, organizational impro- vement can be gained by enhancing both leadership and followership skills. Also, good followers derive greater satisfaction, attract higher remuneration, achieve self-actualization and enhance organizational effectiveness and adaptability (Hurwitz and Hurwitz, 2009a: 84; Hurwitz and Hurwitz, 2009b: 200). A working knowledge of followership can facilitate organizational change and followership coaching is likely to reduce executive derailment when a new senior leader or CEO is recruited with a different leadership style that requires other employees to adapt their own followership style (Hurwitz and Hurwitz, 2009c). Thus, the ‘so what?’ aspects of the literature cited in this paper can be profound for organizations. Given the impact that coaching followers can have in organizational success, the call for research concerned with followership to continue (Carsten et al., 2010) would seem to be justified.

A possible avenue for researchers to pursue is the development of a valid and reliable questionnaire for followership (Agho, 2009: 166). One possibility that could usefully be employed to explore the connection between leadership and followership, too often pre- sented as a binary, would be to investigate followership with a modified Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ was developed by Bass (1985) to examine not only the charismatic aspects of transformational leadership but also transactional and more ‘mundane leadership’ (Tejeda et al., 2001: 32). The MLQ has evolved over the years and a recent version, MLQ5X, has been used for ‘multilevel’ leadership analysis in response to the increasing calls for more research in the complexities of leadership in teams and within vertical and horizontal networked levels (Day et al., 2006; Mehra et al., 2006; Offerman and Scuderi, 2007; Shawn Burke et al., 2006; Yammarino and Danserau, 2008). Such areas overlap with the notion of followership as upwards leadership.

Conclusion

This paper has sought to clarify the conceptualization of followership and to highlight some key areas of interest in a review of literature on the topic. The paper discussed defi- nitions of followers and followership which have been variously defined, from the ability to follow leaders’ directives to more contemporary common perspectives of followership as

492 Leadership 7(4)

an influential role assumed by those lower down in the hierarchy. A brief review of how followers have influenced the leadership literature ensued. The paper has also traced the development of earlier individualized leader-centric literature to the rise of bottom-up fol- lower-centred perspectives, and multiple leaderships which encompass shared, collective and self-managed teams. The three main areas in followership literature per se were grouped into descriptive behaviour typologies (those theories that describe actual follower behaviours), prescriptive behavioural typologies (idealized behaviours and attributes that followers should possess) and situational theories. The latter group tends to balance leadership and followership styles, focusing attention rather to the context in which leadership and follow- ership operate. The notion of followership/leadership as a process is intrinsic to Agho’s (2009) argument that only after becoming an effective follower can one become an effective leader – suggesting that followership is an experiential requirement of leadership that can be managed in organizations. Recent findings discussed in this paper provide an encouraging momentum and represent an important resource for those involved in the development of both followers and leaders alike. The benefits of building an organizational strategy around these research outcomes, according to Hurwitz and Hurwitz (2009a; 2009b; 2009c), are far reaching.

References

Agho A (2009) Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of leadership and Organizational Studies 16(2): 159–166.

Alcorn D (1992) Dynamic followership; Empowerment at work. Management Quarterly 33(1):

9–14. Alford C (2008) Whistleblowing as responsible followership. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-

Blument J (eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 237–251.

Alio R (2009) Leadership – the five big ideas. Strategy and Leadership 37(2): 4–12. Atchison T (2004) Followership: A Practical Guide to Aligning Leaders and Followers. Chicago, IL:

Health Administration Press.

Avolio B and Reichard R (2008) The rise of authentic followership. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blument J (eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 325–337.

Baker S (2007) Followership: The theoretical foundations of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 14(1): 50–60.

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York and London: The Free

Press. Bass M and Stogdill R (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and

Managerial Applications (3rd edn). New York: The Free Press. Blake RR and Mouton JS (1964) The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

Birnbaum R (1988) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organizations and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bjugstad D, Thach E, Thompson K and Morris A (2006) A fresh look at followership: A model for

matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management 7(3): 304–319.

Blanchard A, Welbourne J, Gilmore D and Bullock A (2009) Followership and employee attachment

to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 12: 111–131. Briggs A (2004) Middle managers in further educational colleges: The new professionals. Journal of

Educational Administration 42(5): 586–600.

Burns J (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Crossman and Crossman 493

Carsten M, Uhl-Bien M, West B, Patera J and McGregor R (2010) Exploring social constructions of

followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly 21: 543–562. Chaleff I (1995) The Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for our Leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler Publishers.

Chaleff I (2008) Creating new ways of following. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blument J (eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 67–87.

Ciulla J (2003) The Ethics of Leadership. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

Cohen A and Bradford D (1989) Influence without Authority. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Collinson D (2006) Rethinking Followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The

Leadership Quarterly 17: 179–189.

Day D, Gronn P and Salas E (2006) Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly 17: 211–216.

Den Hartog D and Koopman P (2005) Implicit theories of leadership at different hierarchical levels.

In: Schyns B and Meindl J (eds) Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Dixon G and Westbrook J (2003) Followers revealed. Engineering Management Journal 15(1): 19–25.

Dubrin A, Dalglish C and Miller P (2006) Leadership (2nd edn. Asia-Pacific Edition). Milton, Qld: John Wiley and Sons, Australia.

Foster W (1989) Towards a critical practice of leadership. In: Smyth J (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership. Basington: The Falmer Press.

Gardner J (1990) On Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Gardner W, Avolio B, Luthans F, May D and Walumbwa F (2005) ‘Can you see the real me?’

A self-based model on authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly 16:

342–372. Glasman N and Heck R (1996) Chapter 12: Role-based evaluations of principals: Developing an

appraisal system. In: Leithwood K, Chapman J, Corson D, Hallinger P and Hart A (eds)

International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gibbons P (1992) Impacts of organizational evolution on leadership roles and behaviours. Human

Relations 45(1): 1–18. Goffee R and Jones G (2006) Why Should Anyone Be Led by You: What it Takes to Be an Authentic

Leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gronn P (1996) From transactions to transformations. Educational Management and Administration

24: 17–30. Gronn P (1998) ‘Our playmates’: The culture of teaming in a human resource management unit.

Leading and Managing 4(4): 294–318.

Gronn P (2003) Leadership: who needs it? School Leadership and Management 23(3): 267–290. Hackman J and Wageman R (2007) Asking the right questions about leadership. American

Psychologist 62(1): 43–47.

Heifetz R, Grashow A and Linsky M (2009) Leadership in a (Permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review 87(7/8): 62–69.

Heller T and van Til J (1982) Leadership and followership: Some summary propositions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18: 405–414.

Hersey P and Blanchard K (1972) Management of Organizational Behavior (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hersey P and Blanchard K (1982) Management of Organizational Behavior (4th edn). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hinrichs KT (2007) Follower propensity to commit crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies 14(1): 69–76.

494 Leadership 7(4)

Hodgkinson C (1983) The Philosophy of Leadership. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited.

Hollander EP (1992) The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1: 71–75.

Hollander EP and Offerman LR (1990) Power and Leadership in Organizations. American Psychologist

45: 179–189. Hollander EP and Webb WE (1955) Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer

nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50(2): 163–167. Horsfall C (2001) Team leaders make a difference in raising achievement. In: Horsfall C (ed.)

Leadership Issues: Raising Achievement. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Howell J and Costley D (2006) Understanding Behaviours for Effective Leadership. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Howell J and Mendez M (2008) Three perspectives on followership. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blument J (eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 25–39.

Hurwitz M and Hurwitz S (2009a) The romance of the follower: part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training 41(2): 80–86.

Hurwitz M and Hurwitz S (2009b) The romance of the follower: part 2. Industrial and Commercial

Training 41(4): 199–206. Hurwitz M and Hurwitz S (2009c) The romance of the follower: part 3. Industrial and Commercial

Training 41(6): 326–333. Jaussi K, Stefanovich A and Devlin P (2008) Effective followership for creativity and innovation.

In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blument J (eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 291–307.

Johnson C (2007) Ethics in the Workplace: Tools and Tactics for Organizational Transformation.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Keller T (1999) Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The

Leadership Quarterly 10: 589–607.

Kellerman B (2007) What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business Review 85(12): 84–91.

Kellerman B (2008) Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Kelley R (1988) In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review 66(6): 142–148. Kelley R (1992) The Power of Followership. New York: Doubleday. Kelley R (1998) Followership in a leadership world. In: Spears L (ed.) Insights on Leadership: Service,

Stewardship, Spirit and Servant Leadership. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons. Kelley R (2008) Rethinking followership. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blumen J (eds) The Art

of Followership. New York: Doubleday.

Kerr S and Jermier J (1978) Substitutes for leadership: The meaning and measurement. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 22: 375–403.

Lord R (2008) Followers’ cogitive and affective structures and leadership processes. In: Riggio R,

Chaleff I and Lipman-Blumen J (eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lussier R and Achua C (2004) Leadership: Theory, Application, Skill Development. Eagen, Minnesota: Thompson South-Western.

Mehra A, Smith B, Dixon A and Robertson B (2006) Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly 17(3): 232–245.

Meindl J (1995) The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructivist

approach. Leadership Quarterly 6: 329–341. Meindl J, Ehrlich S and Dukerich J (1985) The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly

30(1): 78–102.

Crossman and Crossman 495

Mumford M, Antes A, Caughron J and Friedrich T (2008) Charismatic, Ideological, and pragmatic

leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly 19(2): 144–160.

Mushonga S and Torrance C (2008) Assessing the relationship between followership and the big five

factor model of personality. Review of Business Research 8(2): 185–193. Northhouse P (2007) Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Nye JL (2005) Implicit leadership theories and leadership perceptions in the thick of it. In: Schyns B

and Meindl J (eds) Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations. Greenwich: Information

Age Publishing. Offerman LR and Scuderi NF (2007) Sharing leadership: Who, what, when and why. In: Shamir B,

Pillai R, Bligh M and Uhl-Bien M (eds) Follower-Centred Perspectives on Leadership. Greenwich:

Information Age Publishing, 71–91. Offerman LR, Kennedy JK and Wirtz PW (1994) Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure and

generalizability. Leadership Quarterly 5(1): 43–58.

Potter E and Rosenbach W (2006) Followers as partners: The spirit of leadership. In: Rosenbach W and Taylor R (eds) Contemporary Issues in Leadership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Raelin J (2003) Creating Leaderful Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Rosenbach W and Taylor R (2006) Contemporary Issues in Leadership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rost JC (1993) Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rost J (1995) Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(1): 129–142. Rost J (2008) Followership: an outmoded concept. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blumen J (eds)

The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 53–64.

Russell M (2003) Leadership and followership as a relational process. Educational Management and

Administration 31(2): 145–158. Sashkin M (2004) Transformational leadership approaches. In: Antonakis J, Gianciolo A and

Sternberg R (eds) The Nature of Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 171–196.

Seteroff S (2003) Beyond Leadership to Followership. Victoria: Trafford Publishing. Shamir B (2007) From passive recipients to active co-producers: Follower’s roles in the leadership

process. In: Shamir B, Pillai R, Bligh M and Uhl-Bien M (eds) Follower-Centred Perspectives on

Leadership. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Shawn Burke C, Stagl K, Klein C, Goodwin G, Salas E and Halpin S (2006) What type of leadership

behaviors are functional in teams? The Leadership Quarterly 17: 288–307.. Stech E (2008) A new leadership-followership paradigm. In: Riggio R, Chaleff I and Lipman-Blumen J

(eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steger J, Manners G and Zimmerman T (1982) Following the leader: How to link management style to

subordinate personalities. Management Review 82(10): 22–28. Tejeda M, Scandura T and Pillai R (2001) The MLQ revisted: Psychometric properties and recom-

mendations. The Leadership Quarterly 12: 31–52.

Thody A (2003) Followership in educational organizations: A pilot mapping of the territory. Leadership and Policy in Schools 2: 141–156.

Thompson G and Vecchio R (2009) Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 837–848.

Townsend P and Gebhart J (1997) Five-Star Leadership. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Uhl-Bien M (2005) Implicit theories of relationships in the workplace. In: Schyns B and Meindl J (eds)

Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Uhl-Bien M (2006) Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 654–676.

Vroom VH and Yetton PW (1973) Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of

Pittsburgh Press.

496 Leadership 7(4)

Wortman M (1982) Strategic management and changing leader-follower roles. The Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science 18(3): 371–383. Yammarino F and Danserau F (2008) Multilevel nature and multilevel approaches to leadership. The

Leadership Quarterly 19: 135–141.

Yukl G (2006) Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaleznik A (1965) The dynamics of subordinacy. Harvard Business Review 43(3): 119–131.

Brian Crossman started his career with a degree in chemistry and working for a large mul- tinational in the oil and gas sector. He turned to education in his early forties and now works as a lecturer/tutor for the University of South Australia as well as the South Australian and Eynesbury Institutes of Business & Technology. His research interests are centred on teacher professionalism, followership and leadership in vocational education.

Dr Joanna Crossman is a senior lecturer in the School of Management at the University of South Australia. Her research interests include spiritual leadership in secular organisations, international education in business contexts and intercultural communication. She is a co- editor of the Journal of International Education in Business (JIEB), published by Emerald. Joanna teaches conflict, negotiation and communication at both undergraduate and post- graduate levels and supervises a number of Management PhD candidates in areas related to her research interests. She has worked in academic and management positions in Australia, the UK, Malaysia, Norway and the UAE.

Crossman and Crossman 497